Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple Case Summary
- shrey singh
- Aug 8, 2020
- 11 min read
Sri Marthanda Varma (D) Thr. LRs. & Anr. V. State of Kerala & Ors.
Civil Appeal no.2732 of 2020 decided on 13th July 2020
[Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.11295 of 2011]
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra, JJ.
Laws Involved: Constitution of India, Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act (TC Act),
Facts:
The issue before this case arose by means of two writ petitions filed by the appellants which challenged the judgement and order passed by the Kerala High Court in 2011. As far these petitions are concerned, the first petition, filed in 2009 prayed the court to issue a Writ of Quo Warranto with respect to the office of the Executive Officer of the temple. This petition also prayed that the State be directed to administer the temple on the lines of Guruvayoor Devaswom. As for the second petition, filed in 2010, it was filed by the Shree Marthanda Varma challenging the maintainability of three suits filed against them in 2007 and 2009, the suits which were instituted against the current members of the royal family and the executive officer appointed by them, challenging their authority over the administration of temple and also raised the question about the ownership of this temple.
The bench inquired into the history of this temple and its management before delivering the judgement. Some important historical facts discussed in the judgement, in a chronological manner, were that as per the Instrument of Accession signed between the princely states and the Government of India, the administration of the Padmanabhaswamy Temple was vested in trust in the Ruler of Travancore, since 1949. In 1971, privy purses to the former royals were abolished through the 26th Constitutional Amendment stripping their entitlements and privileges. The 26th Constitutional Amendment Act which came into force in 1971 omitted Articles 291 and 362 and inserted Article 363A, amending the definition of “Ruler” incorporated within clause 22 of Article 366. In 1991, when the last ruler of Travancore, Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma, passed away, his brother Uthradam Thirunal Marthanda Varma took over the temple management. This created a furore that he had no legal right to claim the control or management of the temple. However, the royal family continued to manage the affairs of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple. When this issue went before the Kerala High Court in 2011, it ruled that the royal family cannot continue to exert its Shebait rights.
The Kerala High Court analysed the historical aspects related to the administration of the temples in Travancore and noted that for over one and a half centuries the temples were under the Government Departments and thereafter under the Devaswom Board constituted under the TC Act. The only difference with Shree Padmanabhaswamy Temple was that it used to be under the direct control of the Travancore King and that this temple was also treated as a State/public temple and was never regarded as private property of the Travancore King or as his family property. This arrangement continued till 1949 after which the Agreement of Accession was signed integrating, the Princely States of Travancore and Cochin as one and bringing the Travancore-Cochin as Part B State under the Constitution. Government of India was also a signatory to the Agreement of Accession signed between the Kings of Travancore and Cochin constituting the Travancore Cochin State. Following which a Covenant was signed between the Maharajas of Travancore & Cochin and the Government of India. Mr. V.P. Menon had signed the Covenant on behalf of the Government of India.
Based on this, the court concluded that after the definition of ‘Ruler’ appearing in Article 366 (22) of the Constitution of India was amended by the 26th Constitutional Amendment) Act and Shree Marthanda Varma, being the brother of the last King of Travancore, cannot claim any authority over control or management of the Temple as successor to the last Ruler. The High Court thereafter issued a direction to the State Government to immediately take steps to constitute a body corporate or trust or other legal authority to take over the administration of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple and look after its assets. It will also be responsible to open all the Kallaras and make inventory of the entire articles and create a Museum and exhibit all the treasures of the Temple for the public, devotees and the tourists to view the same which could be arranged on payment basis in the Temple premises itself.
Issues:
The main issues addressed by the bench in this case were: –
(i) Whether the younger brother of the last Ruler of Travancore could claim to be the “Ruler of Travancore” within the meaning of that term contained in Section 18(2) of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950?
(ii) Whether the royal family or Shree Marthanda Varma can claim ownership, control and management of the Temple and the status of Shebaitship?
(iii) Impact of 26th Constitutional Amendment Act on the powers of the Ruler of Travancore related to the administration of the temple.
(iv) Whether the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple is a public property or a private property of the royal family?
(v) Status of Article 363 in the present case and whether the court had any jurisdiction to intervene in this issue?
(vi) Whether the Principle of Escheat would apply to the concept of Shebaitship?
Held:
The hon’ble court divided the (i), (ii) and (iii) issue and dealt with them by inquiring about the various aspects related to them under five situations, which were: –
· Before and up to the date when the Covenant was entered into (May 1949),
· Effects rendered, once Covenant the was entered into,
· Effect of the Constitution of India as it stood before the 26th Constitutional Amendment Act and application of the provisions of the Travancore – Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950,
· Effect of the 26th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971.
· Effect of the death of the person who had signed the Covenant as the Ruler of Travancore.
Addressing (i) and (ii) together the court gave consideration to the history of the temple and considered the fact that though there may be different accounts and beliefs with regard to the origin and how the Temple was set up, every version accepts that the King of Travancore had a role in the administration of the Temple to begin with, and that he was the one who re-constructed the Temple after a major fire that occurred in the year 1686, installed a new idol and took full control of the Temple.
The King of Travancore was thus responsible for setting up the Temple, in the form that it stands today and since then the management of the Temple, till the Covenant was signed, had always been with the Kings of Travancore. Furthermore, the royal family of Travancore had been making endowments in favour of the Temple and that Lord Padmanabha is considered as the family deity by the erstwhile royal family. Considering the significance and importance of the practice of “Thrippati Danam” coupled with common beliefs and the fact that for centuries the Temple had been under the exclusive management of successive Rulers from the ruling family of Travancore, the bench asserted that till the signing of the Covenant, those rulers were in the capacity as Managers or Shebaits of the Temple and the the fact remains that it is well accepted that the management of the Temple had all along been in the hands of the ruling family or the Travancore Palace. As stated by the State in its petition in HC, this has been the traditional and customary belief. Such management has spanned, not for few years or decades, but dates back to centuries. Proceeding in a chronological manner, the day when the Covenant was entered into by the Ruler of the Covenanting State of Travancore, he was holding the office of Shebait of the Temple and represented a continuous and unbroken line of successive Shebaits traced from the original founder. Thus, when the provisions of the Covenant became effective the Ruler of Travancore assumed a new role which was that of Rajpramukh of the United State. No such role was contemplated for the then Ruler of Cochin.
Their earlier capacities as the Rulers or Heads of the respective Covenanting States thus stood terminated except of their powers related to suspension, remission or commutation of death sentences. The court also pointed out that on the day when the Covenant became effective, the Ruler of the Covenanting State of Travancore was holding the office of Shebait of the Temple which was not in his official capacity as the Ruler.
Interpreting the provisions of the Covenant, the court propounded upon two aspects. First of all, Article VIII of the Covenant expressly stated that the administration of the temple shall be conducted subject to the supervision and control of “the Ruler of Travancore”. Chapter III of the TC Act specifically dealt with Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple and matters pertaining to the administration of the Temple. Secondly, Section 62 (2) of the TC Act, in tune with proviso to Sub-Article ‘d’ of Article VIII of the Covenant provides that despite the vesting of administration in Cochin Devaswom Board, the regulation and control of rituals and ceremonies in the temples referred to therein would continue to be exercised by the Ruler of Cochin. Based on this interpretation the court concluded that the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India as well as that of the TC Act did not abridge the status enjoyed by the Ruler of Travancore as Shebait of the Temple and also did not, in any manner, impact the right of administration vested in the Ruler of Travancore.
Therefore, with regards to the (i) Issue, the court stated that the expression “Ruler of Travancore” in the Covenant and in the TC Act was only to identify the person and that the official status of the Ruler of Travancore had no relation with such administration. Since the TC Act didn’t define the expression “Ruler” and the definition of it under Article 363 and 366 (22) of the constitution is inclusive and applies for the purpose of these articles alone, the court considered that the definition of ‘Ruler’ does not ipso facto has any application to the provisions of the TC Act. While interpreting Article 366(22) of the Constitution and its inclusive application, the court applied the ratio of Maharaja Pravir Chandra Bhanj Deo Kakatiya vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh wherein it was held that “There is nothing in the provisions of Art. 366(22) which requires a court to recognize such a person as a Ruler for purposes outside the Constitution.”
(ii) For determining the status of Shebaitship tradition and its legal aspects, the court applied a number of case laws in order to determine its nature and inheritance. The court referred to a constitution bench judgement delivered in the case of M. Siddiq (dead) through LRs vs. Mahant Suresh Das and others (Ram Janmabhumi Temple Case) which dealt with the role and position of a Shebait. However, resilience was placed upon the precedent set before this court in the case of Angurbala Mullick vs. Debabrata Mullick wherein the court had held that even where no emoluments are attached to the office of the Shebait, he enjoys some sort of right or interest in the debutter property which partially has the character of a proprietary right. The court, instead of laying down any new rules, propounded that when an idol is installed and the temple is constructed or an endowment is founded, the shebaitship is vested in the founder and unless the founder himself has disposed of the shebaitship in a particular manner or through any custom, the shebaitship like any other species of heritable property follows the line of inheritance from the founder. The court also considered that the office of Shebait has the elements of office and property and that of duties and personal interest blended together with the character of property right. The court reversed the order of Kerala High Court regarding this issue and held that, considering that the Shebait is the custodian of the idol, he is entitled to deal with the administration of the temple and manage the assets of the idol. Considering the fact that the temple was reconstructed and a new idol was established by the King of Travancore Shri Marthand Varma and since then right up to the day the Covenant was signed the management of the Temple had always been with the Kings of Travancore. The shebaitship or the managership of the Temple passed on to the succeeding Kings, coming from the royal family of Travancore. This chain was unbroken till the then Ruler of Travancore signed the Covenant in May 1949. Additionally, substituting the ratio of Revathinnal Balagopala Varma vs. His Highness Shri Padmanabha Dasa Bala Rama Varma (since deceased) and others as a precedent for devolution in royal family, the court held that the shebaitship of the Temple had also passed from Ruler to Ruler consistent with the principles of succession otherwise applicable to the royal family.
(iii) With the deletion of Article 291 after the 26th Constitutional Amendment, the rights, liabilities and obligations with respect to Privy Purses stood extinguished. Additionally, the fact put forward by Article 362 that while exercising legislative or executive power due regard shall be given to the guarantee or assurance given in any Covenant or agreement referred to in Article 291 also ceased to exist. However, an important point which the court put forward in this discussion was regarding the effect of this amendment on the personal properties of the Ruler which would continue to be available for normal succession and devolution in accordance with the law and custom. Though concepts such as Ruler or Rulership have ceased to operate succession to the Gaddi as an incident may still operate. As far as the issue of administration is concerned, the court held that the Constitution (Twenty Sixth Amendment) Act, 1971 did not in any way impact or affect the administration of the Temple, Sri Pandaravaga properties and the properties of the Temple, which continued to be under the control and supervision of the Ruler of Travancore. The court relied on the precedent set in the case of Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia v Union of India, while addressing this issue.
(iv) While determining this question, the bench referred to the case of Bala Shankar Maha Shanker Bhattjee and Others vs. Charity Commissioner, Gujarat State, wherein the parameters and a test for determining whether a temple is a private temple, or a public temple. It also acknowledged that in a given case the management of the temple may be by the members of a family. Placing resilience on the above case law, the court held the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple as a public temple.
(v) Assessing the applicability of the bar mentioned in Article 363 of the Constitution the bench was inspired from the observation laid down by Chief Justice Hidayatullah in the case of Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia v Union of India wherein he had pointed out that for applying such bar under Article 363, “the dispute must fall under either of two limbs of Article 363. Under the first limb the dispute must arise out of the provisions of the Covenant, whereas under the second limb the dispute must be with respect to the right arising out of a provision of the Constitution relating to the Covenant.” Since the dispute in present case involved the question regarding the authority of the Royal Family over temple administration and a writ of quo warranto had been filed before the court in context of the expression “Ruler of Travancore” from Chapter III of Part I of the TC Act. Therefore, it wouldn’t be covered under either of the limbs of Article 363 of the Constitution.
(vi) After considering all the facts and legal propositions the court held that the death of Sree Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma who had signed the Covenant would not in any way affect the Shebaitship of the Temple held by the royal family of Travancore. Since Shebaitship devolves in accordance with the applicable law and custom upon the successor, the expression “Ruler of Travancore” in Chapter III of Part I of the TC Act refers to natural successors according to law and custom. Therefore, the Shebaitship did not lapse in favour of the State by principle of escheat.
Comments